Archives for July 2004

Time to make another entry to my “Very Short Blogroll” on the left-side column. I’m honored to introduce Keith Burgess-Jackson, JD, PhD. He’s a licensed attorney in both Michigan and Arizona, and currently a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas. I’ve been reading his blog, on and off, for a few months and I find his depth on the general subject matter of philosophy, politics, and ethics to be noteworthy. He comes up with some very compelling and thought-provoking ideas.

He’s a former liberal and socialist himself, and so speaks with some authority on what he considers wrong-headed with respect to liberal ideology. He’s also far more polite, charitable and patient in characterizing his philosophical opponents than am I.

Liberals think that the means to world peace is negotiation (conciliation, compromise). No conservative opposes world peace. But not all conflicts are resolvable through negotiation, for that requires rational, self-interested agents. Our enemies today—radical Muslims—are irrational, at least by Western standards. They value destruction of their enemies more than their own lives or the lives of their loved ones. How do you negotiate with someone who is suicidal? How do you negotiate with someone who wants your death more than anything else? You have no leverage. The only way to deal with implacable, irrational enemies is through force. Conservatives, to their credit, understand this. Liberals do not.

Well, I’m behind. I should be posting about the other guy, but first things first. I was going to write a summary of Edward’s speech; then I realized that someone already wrote the Legend of Robin Hood—you know—the “virtue” of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. That will suffice.

I will say that it must be ironic to all but zombies to listen to a speech themed on “Two Americas” (class envy and warfare, for those in need of a clue) and have it conclude by excoriating his opponent for engaging in divisive politics.

Anyway, I caught wind of this gem, all facts easily verifiable, and it just so clearly illustrates the deep dishonesty and hypocrisy of the man. Is he the only one? No, certainly not; he’s just the one in my sights right now. But I also doubt there’s anyone more hypocritical. Some excerpts:

Turns out the senior Tarheel senator is a double beneficiary of alleged drug-company misdemeanors. On the campaign trail he gets to bray about the injustice of it all, and back home he collects the dividends of “price gouging” and adds them to his considerable net worth.

Wait, Bill Miller is in the senator’s portfolio. Edwards had more than $100,000 in Miller’s renowned Legg Mason Value Trust at the end of last year, holding pieces of stocks such as Citigroup, Tyco and one of the health insurers Edwards excoriates, UnitedHealth Group.

Edwards, who voted to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq, also bought shares in defense corporations Lockheed Martin and United Technologies the week before the war began. Lockheed Martin makes Patriot missiles, among other hardware, and United Technologies makes Black Hawk helicopters.

The senator has also held stock and bond investments in DaimlerChrysler. You know DaimlerChrysler. Presidential candidate John Edwards shined a spotlight on the company earlier this year:

How DaimlerChrysler decided to shift frame production of its Dodge Ram truck to Mexico. How that forced its Milwaukee supplier, Tower Automotive, to move work to Mexico, too. How 500 Milwaukee jobs will disappear by the middle of next year as a result.

While it’s true that at least part of the time his assets were in a blind trust and he did not know or control the precise trades, he certainly could have specified classes of investments that he didn’t want—or hell—he could have set up a blind trust with Peter Camejo’s brokerage that invests only in “socially responsible” companies, whatever the hell that means. He could have invested in plain ‘ol real estate, or any number of other sorts of investments. But he didn’t. He knew his funds would be invested in the same companies he was going to go out and excoriate, and he knew he’d be laughing all the way to the bank.

Let me be perfectly clear. While I wholly condemn the way he “earned” his money in the first place, which is nothing more than an unjust tax on all of you via higher prices for goods, services, and insurance in order to pay the tens of millions of dollars in settlements and judgments that went into John Edward’s pockets, I’ve no problem with a guy investing money, per se, and earning a good return on it. Conflict of interest? Only to ignoramuses who see the economy as a zero-sum game. Public policy that honestly and justly benefits a company or industry is one of the very few things on a very short list of things that politicians sometimes get right, and typically, simply involves getting out of the way of the company or industry.

Just stop using the word “democratic” in an improper and loaded manner already.

Next time someone says “democratic party,” ask them which one they mean, the Democrat Party or the Republican Party. When they talk about the “democratic convention,” inquire as to whether they are talking about the one being put on by the Democrats or the one to be put on by the Republicans.

Listen, I’m no big fan of democracy. It’s just the tyranny of the majority over the minority rather than other forms of tyranny. Even still, words mean things, so use them properly.

Well, this is what you get when you’re a blowhard with no sound foundation. O’Reilly, sometimes entertaining as host of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, is shallow in terms of political philosophy. And that came out in spades during last night’s interview with Michael Moore. He deserved to be embarrassed as he should be after that performance. Bill: when someone confronts you with a moral argument, the thing to do is examine the moral being appealed to and deal with that. You don’t counter it with an even stupider moral argument.

I saw only the last bit of the interview last night, but it was enough to see that O’Reilly was ill equipped. It was jaw dropping (close quotes):

Moore: So, Bill, would you send your neighbor’s children to secure Fallujah?

O’Reilly: No, I’d send myself instead.

Here is Moore making a fallacious moral argument, but a “good sounding” one to people inept at thinking in principles, but who think they can nonetheless.

1. They aren’t Bill’s “children” to send.

2. We don’t enlist the service of children in the U.S. armed forces. Those who enlist or accept a commission do so of their own volition (which, incidentally, I did myself from 1982 – 1992).

3. Those who volunteer to serve don’t get to second guess every operation and decide whether they wish to participate, or should participate, or not. This is a “metaphysical” aspect of military service; it’s the nature of the thing. You’re supposed to consider this before you sign up.

But, on the surface, Moore’s argument sure sounds good, doesn’t it? Sounds nice and “individualist” and all. Why should we sacrifice the good life of anyone for the sake of Fallujah and its miserable ilk? Unfortunately, it ignores the moral principle of an individual’s freedom to do as he pleases with his life, such as join the military. Moreover, it presumes to substitute any particular individual’s value hierarchy with that of Michael Moore’s. Finally, it fails to abstract the larger ideal represented by liberating Fallujah.

And how does O’Reilly respond? He resorts to the tired old rhetoric of self-sacrifice, designed to make everyone just go all weak at the knees in awe. ‘Oh, Bill would give his life in place of his neighbor’s child.’ Well, maybe he would and maybe he wouldn’t—and his virtue could be debated. Either way, it doesn’t answer the question.

Now, I’m not the only one out there capable of reasoning through this sort of issue. Here are a couple of others I dug up:

John Derbyshire, who gives an historical-philosophical perspective that’s dead on. It includes gems like this:

The Left has never departed in any significant way from Leninist collectivism. Human beings are not autonomous spiritual beings, possessed of free will. They are mechanical units who need to be directed, governed, shoveled around like so many truckloads of concrete, socially engineered. Or they are “children,” to be scolded and directed and constantly supervised.

Primary Sidebar

About

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free the Animal began in 2003, and as of 2017, contains over 4,500 posts and 100,000 comments from readers. I cover a lot of ground, blogging what I wish...from health, diet, and lifestyle to philosophy, politics, social issues, and cryptocurrency. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances in life. [Read more...]

Please consider supporting this Blog by CLICKING HERE whenever you shop Amazon. Costs you nothing but sure does help out.